Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Financial Technologies Corp
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-08211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Integritas Solutions Group v. Dragonfly Technologies, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs, while allowing limited reopening requests.
Integritas Solutions Group LLC and Dragonfly Technologies Corp.; the order canceled their scheduled proceedings, terminated open motions, closed the case, and set conditions for any request to reopen or retain authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Technologies Corp. ended after the parties informed the court that mediation had produced an agreement resolving all issues.
The court canceled scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions.
Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to request reopening for good cause or to ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Integritas Solutions Group LLC v. Dragonfly Financial Technologies Corp · No. 1:24-cv-08211
- Valerie Caproni
- May 19, 2025
Background
The court was notified on May 14, 2025, that mediation had resulted in an agreement resolving all issues between Integritas Solutions Group LLC and Dragonfly Technologies Corp. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Order
The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
Possible Reopening or Continued Jurisdiction
Within 30 days, the parties could apply to reopen the case. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement, and requests filed after 30 days or without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the settlement agreement—they had to submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, canceled the scheduled proceedings and deadlines, terminated the open motions, and directed that the case be closed. The order also provided a 30-day procedure for seeking reopening or continued jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.